The multiplayer in Pandora Tomorrow and Chaos Theory was good enough that 15-20 years on I long for another game like that
+6
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I remember Shawn from EGM was talking to us and telling us Chaos Theory was the first time his mind was fooled into thinking he was seeing a real object in a video game.
A plastic, action-figurery thing, but a real tangible object nonetheless.
You've got one dude running around in first person and you've got other dudes running around and hiding in third person. The game are identical.
You're probably joking, but in case you are not, Splinter Cell was equal teams, not the 1 vs many formula that became a thing in multiplayer games of the previous generation.
Wreckless was another game that looked a world apart on Xbox compared to the later PS2 & GC ports.
Wreckless could put some early 360 Games to shame - that game looked great. Though, I’m now thinking of the Project Gotham Racing series and how beautiful that looked on the system. And every so often people would come out and say there’s no topping this - graphics can in no way get better. Someone says it every generation and every generation after that, at least after a time, they get proved wrong.
PGR2 deserves a remaster, NFS:HP style. I enjoyed the hell out of all the PGRs, they were all great; but 2 was really something very, very special.
I would assume that was the result of Nintendo asking a price that Microsoft wasn't willing to pay (and while it was a nice enough inclusion, given just how radically different Team Ninja's game was, it's not building on the game the way the mission content did).
I don't really understand what Nintendo has to do with it/how they could ask for anything. They're not their games.
re: the CoD releases through 2023... considering the deal isn't even closing until likely early 2023, non of that should be surprising. Legally Microsoft can't even alter the direction of Activision until the deal is done, so while I'm sure there's some handshake stuff off the record, if Activision really wanted they could sign contracts for anything going into the future that Microsoft would have to honor.
I'm fairly sure any attempt by AB leadership to make any kind of deal that would effect the future of the company would have to be revealed to MS as that would effect the deal. And right now the last thing anyone at AB want to do is do anything that could cause MS to back out.
Like I've seen elsewhere people saying that Sony should pay AB a ton of money for an extended CoD deal so as to block MS from making CoD an exclusive and the response from actual lawyers was that that was the dumbest possible thing they could do.
Dumbest thing Activision could do. If Sony managed to pull it off in a legally-binding way, that would be brilliant on their part.
Not that I see it working, mind.
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
I would assume that was the result of Nintendo asking a price that Microsoft wasn't willing to pay (and while it was a nice enough inclusion, given just how radically different Team Ninja's game was, it's not building on the game the way the mission content did).
I don't really understand what Nintendo has to do with it/how they could ask for anything. They're not their games.
I thought they would have a hand in their distribution as Super Nintendo titles. I stand corrected if that's not the case.
0
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
edited January 2022
With Nintendo, it's not about price. They're simply not for sale, not to anyone, and especially not any American company.
They're a company that started out over 133 YEARS ago making playing cards and unique toys. They're a proudly and fiercely independent, uniquely Japanese company.
Anyone even suggesting that they could be bought fundamentally misunderstands Nintendo and their history.
With Nintendo, it's not about price. They're simply not for sale, not to anyone, and especially not any American company.
They're a company that started out over 133 YEARS ago making playing cards and unique toys. They're a proudly and fiercely independent, uniquely Japanese company.
Anyone even suggesting that they could be bought fundamentally misunderstands Nintendo and their history.
If that's the case, then it would still have been Nintendo's prerogative to refuse.
Though I find this whole "proudly and fiercely independent" argument very dubious for something they would've already sold to Microsoft and Tecmo once anyway. If they did have control over the original trilogy content--if--under what basis did they allowed Team Ninja to distribute it for an Xbox exclusive title in the first place? Not being paid money for the rights? Something "proudly and fiercely independent" changing their minds?
That sounds irrelevant. It sounds a lot more like, if Nintendo had a hand, they changed their minds because they were unhappy with the price point, and Microsoft (or Tecmo via Microsoft) were unhappy with what they wanted. Or Nintendo expected a further payment for another physical release, and the other party was unhappy that it wasn't covered by the original terms, which is also about money. And not their "pride and fierce independence," and three old Ninja Gaiden games being core to it.
If Nintendo had a say in it at all, which they might not have.
I know I'm going to regret bringing this up, but really, this feels like it's going into subconscious fetishization of Nintendo in the absence of confirming information anyway due to Nintendo (and other company's) tendency not to share said information, that isn't unheard on these forums. I'm fine with assuming some pride of authorship, because I suspect the same. I don't think Nintendo was too afraid of losing their pride and ferocity when they sold permission for an American publisher to put a bunch of forgettable Mario games actually featuring Mario and Luigi on MS-DOS in the 1990s either; I'm pretty sure they saw sacks of cash and wanted that. And we're not even talking about Mario; we're talking about games that Nintendo happened to publish (because they didn't use the two Sega releases) developed entirely separately, that Microsoft secured rights to. That's why @LBD_Nytetrayn's proposal seems a lot less dubious, frankly.
I think it's a little too easy for people to fall into a trap of assuming some sort of orientalist "honor and patriotic pride" in the case of Nintendo simply having a more conservative business strategy when they think it suits them combined with "not wanting to be bought out", as if that were somehow relevant to Ninja Gaiden and there weren't laws impeding that anyway. A lot of large companies really don't want to be bought out, it's not unique to Nintendo in the least; people have been talking about how Microsoft was going to sell off the Xbox division for literally twenty years now, and then they went and spent $69 billion to make it a even bigger.
With Nintendo, it's not about price. They're simply not for sale, not to anyone, and especially not any American company.
They're a company that started out over 133 YEARS ago making playing cards and unique toys. They're a proudly and fiercely independent, uniquely Japanese company.
Anyone even suggesting that they could be bought fundamentally misunderstands Nintendo and their history.
If that's the case, then it would still have been Nintendo's prerogative to refuse.
Though I find this whole "proudly and fiercely independent" argument very dubious for something they would've already sold to Microsoft and Tecmo once anyway. If they did have control over the original trilogy content--if--under what basis did they allowed Team Ninja to distribute it for an Xbox exclusive title in the first place? Not being paid money for the rights? Something "proudly and fiercely independent" changing their minds?
That sounds irrelevant. It sounds a lot more like, if Nintendo had a hand, they changed their minds because they were unhappy with the price point, and Microsoft (or Tecmo via Microsoft) were unhappy with what they wanted. Or Nintendo expected a further payment for another physical release, and the other party was unhappy that it wasn't covered by the original terms, which is also about money. And not their "pride and fierce independence," and three old Ninja Gaiden games being core to it.
If Nintendo had a say in it at all, which they might not have.
I know I'm going to regret bringing this up, but really, this feels like it's going into subconscious fetishization of Nintendo in the absence of confirming information anyway due to Nintendo (and other company's) tendency not to share said information, that isn't unheard on these forums. I'm fine with assuming some pride of authorship, because I suspect the same. I don't think Nintendo was too afraid of losing their pride and ferocity when they sold permission for an American publisher to put a bunch of forgettable Mario games actually featuring Mario and Luigi on MS-DOS in the 1990s either; I'm pretty sure they saw sacks of cash and wanted that. And we're not even talking about Mario; we're talking about games that Nintendo happened to publish (because they didn't use the two Sega releases) developed entirely separately, that Microsoft secured rights to. That's why @LBD_Nytetrayn's proposal seems a lot less dubious, frankly.
I think it's a little too easy for people to fall into a trap of assuming some sort of orientalist "honor and patriotic pride" in the case of Nintendo simply having a more conservative business strategy when they think it suits them combined with "not wanting to be bought out", as if that were somehow relevant to Ninja Gaiden and there weren't laws impeding that anyway. A lot of large companies really don't want to be bought out, it's not unique to Nintendo in the least; people have been talking about how Microsoft was going to sell off the Xbox division for literally twenty years now, and then they went and spent $69 billion to make it a even bigger.
I think that portion of the quoted text was about buying Nintendo as a whole like Activision / Blizzard, not buying the rights to Ninja Gaiden. I could be wrong, but it read that way to me.
In the area of extreme speculation, in a strange alternate reality where Nintendo's market capitalization was a hundred times what it is today, I don't think they'd try to buy the Xbox division.
If they did try, they'd be turned down. They certainly might pull a Sony with Columbia and MGM, etc., but not with Microsoft and one of their tech arms. Though I bet they wouldn't have minded Blizzard if they could.
Not really anything that stands out (though there was a time where Hydrophobic had shockingly good water simulations physics). I heard that Never Yield was as Switch game that gradually came to over platforms, but otherwise know nothing about it.
Not really anything that stands out (though there was a time where Hydrophobic had shockingly good water simulations physics). I heard that Never Yield was as Switch game that gradually came to over platforms, but otherwise know nothing about it.
Hydrophobia is actually really good and pretty interesting, until suddenly it's
The quality of the offerings fell off a cliff when Game Pass became the primary focus of Xbox.
If they replaced GWG with something, I'd be open to hearing about it. The constant suggestion that they should replace free games each month with... nothing(?) is deeply confusing to me.
The quality of the offerings fell off a cliff when Game Pass became the primary focus of Xbox.
If they replaced GWG with something, I'd be open to hearing about it. The constant suggestion that they should replace free games each month with... nothing(?) is deeply confusing to me.
Personally, I think they should kill GWG, remove the paywall for online, retire Gold completely, and just focus on GP and GPU going forward.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Howsabout a good solid new fighter game from a western company Microsoft owns. Not some Smash Bros knockoff, something like a Guilty Gear or DOA. Hell, buy Eternal Champions from Sega and bring it back.
Howsabout a good solid new fighter game from a western company Microsoft owns. Not some Smash Bros knockoff, something like a Guilty Gear or DOA. Hell, buy Eternal Champions from Sega and bring it back.
they have apparently been trying to bring back Killer Instinct for a while now, but just haven't found the right studio so far.
+1
Options
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
I would assume that was the result of Nintendo asking a price that Microsoft wasn't willing to pay (and while it was a nice enough inclusion, given just how radically different Team Ninja's game was, it's not building on the game the way the mission content did).
I don't really understand what Nintendo has to do with it/how they could ask for anything. They're not their games.
I thought they would have a hand in their distribution as Super Nintendo titles. I stand corrected if that's not the case.
First, re: the other post - Wait, what proposal?
Second: As far as I know, Nintendo has nothing to do with Ninja Gaiden, bar whatever bonus stuff might have been tacked onto the Wii U game.
As far as being Super NES titles goes, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping the emulation and republishing of SNES titles on non-Nintendo platforms. See: Mega Man X Legacy Collection, Konami's Anniversary Collections, among others.
Microsoft's own Rare Replay does unfortunately happen to skip the SNES era entirely, but given it does feature NES and N64 titles, I'm skeptical that the SNES is a special case.
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
I would assume that was the result of Nintendo asking a price that Microsoft wasn't willing to pay (and while it was a nice enough inclusion, given just how radically different Team Ninja's game was, it's not building on the game the way the mission content did).
I don't really understand what Nintendo has to do with it/how they could ask for anything. They're not their games.
I thought they would have a hand in their distribution as Super Nintendo titles. I stand corrected if that's not the case.
First, re: the other post - Wait, what proposal?
Second: As far as I know, Nintendo has nothing to do with Ninja Gaiden, bar whatever bonus stuff might have been tacked onto the Wii U game.
As far as being Super NES titles goes, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping the emulation and republishing of SNES titles on non-Nintendo platforms. See: Mega Man X Legacy Collection, Konami's Anniversary Collections, among others.
Microsoft's own Rare Replay does unfortunately happen to skip the SNES era entirely, but given it does feature NES and N64 titles, I'm skeptical that the SNES is a special case.
Yeah, again, this is why I suspected Nintendo may retain rights over distribution of the specific Super Nintendo releases. They're not exactly famously transparent about these thirty-year-old dealings, though they're not alone in this area either.
I freely admit this might not be the problem, but the very specific removal of three Super Nintendo games between one release and another...it may be Nintendo, it may be Tecmo having an abrupt change of heart, or something else.
I would assume that was the result of Nintendo asking a price that Microsoft wasn't willing to pay (and while it was a nice enough inclusion, given just how radically different Team Ninja's game was, it's not building on the game the way the mission content did).
I don't really understand what Nintendo has to do with it/how they could ask for anything. They're not their games.
I thought they would have a hand in their distribution as Super Nintendo titles. I stand corrected if that's not the case.
First, re: the other post - Wait, what proposal?
Second: As far as I know, Nintendo has nothing to do with Ninja Gaiden, bar whatever bonus stuff might have been tacked onto the Wii U game.
As far as being Super NES titles goes, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping the emulation and republishing of SNES titles on non-Nintendo platforms. See: Mega Man X Legacy Collection, Konami's Anniversary Collections, among others.
Microsoft's own Rare Replay does unfortunately happen to skip the SNES era entirely, but given it does feature NES and N64 titles, I'm skeptical that the SNES is a special case.
The lack of SNES games in Rare Replay is probably simple logistics and funny decisions. Of the 7 games they developed for the system, 3 are the DKC series... duh. Ken Griffey Jr.'s Winning Run is probably mired in MLB rights, not to mention KGJ himself. Battletoads and Double Dragon might be... Arc Systems I think? That just leaves Battlemaniacs and Killer Instinct. Maybe they though nobody cares about KI when KI2/Gold is there, and that Battletoads is more remembered than Battlemaniacs. A... strange decision to make in a compilation with such remembered treasures such as Underwurlde and Knight Lore. Most other compilations will include part 1 even if part 2 was the marquee hit. Either way I can't see why Nintendo would ever step in for those 2 games.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Throwing in an SNES emulator isn't free when you aren't poaching open source stuff. Even if you have a functioning one, porting it to new systems takes some effort. So yeah if they are down to two irrelevant games they might not bother.
Posts
A plastic, action-figurery thing, but a real tangible object nonetheless.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/381210/Dead_by_Daylight/
Having played it, they are nothing alike
Sorry
You've got one dude running around in first person and you've got other dudes running around and hiding in third person. The game are identical.
You're probably joking, but in case you are not, Splinter Cell was equal teams, not the 1 vs many formula that became a thing in multiplayer games of the previous generation.
PGR2 deserves a remaster, NFS:HP style. I enjoyed the hell out of all the PGRs, they were all great; but 2 was really something very, very special.
Steam | XBL
I don't really understand what Nintendo has to do with it/how they could ask for anything. They're not their games.
Dumbest thing Activision could do. If Sony managed to pull it off in a legally-binding way, that would be brilliant on their part.
Not that I see it working, mind.
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
I thought they would have a hand in their distribution as Super Nintendo titles. I stand corrected if that's not the case.
They're a company that started out over 133 YEARS ago making playing cards and unique toys. They're a proudly and fiercely independent, uniquely Japanese company.
Anyone even suggesting that they could be bought fundamentally misunderstands Nintendo and their history.
If that's the case, then it would still have been Nintendo's prerogative to refuse.
Though I find this whole "proudly and fiercely independent" argument very dubious for something they would've already sold to Microsoft and Tecmo once anyway. If they did have control over the original trilogy content--if--under what basis did they allowed Team Ninja to distribute it for an Xbox exclusive title in the first place? Not being paid money for the rights? Something "proudly and fiercely independent" changing their minds?
That sounds irrelevant. It sounds a lot more like, if Nintendo had a hand, they changed their minds because they were unhappy with the price point, and Microsoft (or Tecmo via Microsoft) were unhappy with what they wanted. Or Nintendo expected a further payment for another physical release, and the other party was unhappy that it wasn't covered by the original terms, which is also about money. And not their "pride and fierce independence," and three old Ninja Gaiden games being core to it.
If Nintendo had a say in it at all, which they might not have.
I know I'm going to regret bringing this up, but really, this feels like it's going into subconscious fetishization of Nintendo in the absence of confirming information anyway due to Nintendo (and other company's) tendency not to share said information, that isn't unheard on these forums. I'm fine with assuming some pride of authorship, because I suspect the same. I don't think Nintendo was too afraid of losing their pride and ferocity when they sold permission for an American publisher to put a bunch of forgettable Mario games actually featuring Mario and Luigi on MS-DOS in the 1990s either; I'm pretty sure they saw sacks of cash and wanted that. And we're not even talking about Mario; we're talking about games that Nintendo happened to publish (because they didn't use the two Sega releases) developed entirely separately, that Microsoft secured rights to. That's why @LBD_Nytetrayn's proposal seems a lot less dubious, frankly.
I think it's a little too easy for people to fall into a trap of assuming some sort of orientalist "honor and patriotic pride" in the case of Nintendo simply having a more conservative business strategy when they think it suits them combined with "not wanting to be bought out", as if that were somehow relevant to Ninja Gaiden and there weren't laws impeding that anyway. A lot of large companies really don't want to be bought out, it's not unique to Nintendo in the least; people have been talking about how Microsoft was going to sell off the Xbox division for literally twenty years now, and then they went and spent $69 billion to make it a even bigger.
I think that portion of the quoted text was about buying Nintendo as a whole like Activision / Blizzard, not buying the rights to Ninja Gaiden. I could be wrong, but it read that way to me.
True--it's not theirs to sell to begin with.
If they did try, they'd be turned down. They certainly might pull a Sony with Columbia and MGM, etc., but not with Microsoft and one of their tech arms. Though I bet they wouldn't have minded Blizzard if they could.
Not really anything that stands out (though there was a time where Hydrophobic had shockingly good water simulations physics). I heard that Never Yield was as Switch game that gradually came to over platforms, but otherwise know nothing about it.
Hydrophobia is actually really good and pretty interesting, until suddenly it's
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Why?
The quality of the offerings fell off a cliff when Game Pass became the primary focus of Xbox.
If they replaced GWG with something, I'd be open to hearing about it. The constant suggestion that they should replace free games each month with... nothing(?) is deeply confusing to me.
Steam ID: Good Life
I use this.
https://www.trueachievements.com/products/xbox-sales
DekuDeals, which I use for Nintendo stuff, has Xbox and PS titles in Beta apparently.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Personally, I think they should kill GWG, remove the paywall for online, retire Gold completely, and just focus on GP and GPU going forward.
Microsoft is really firing on all cylinders.
they have apparently been trying to bring back Killer Instinct for a while now, but just haven't found the right studio so far.
First, re: the other post - Wait, what proposal?
Second: As far as I know, Nintendo has nothing to do with Ninja Gaiden, bar whatever bonus stuff might have been tacked onto the Wii U game.
As far as being Super NES titles goes, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping the emulation and republishing of SNES titles on non-Nintendo platforms. See: Mega Man X Legacy Collection, Konami's Anniversary Collections, among others.
Microsoft's own Rare Replay does unfortunately happen to skip the SNES era entirely, but given it does feature NES and N64 titles, I'm skeptical that the SNES is a special case.
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
Yeah, again, this is why I suspected Nintendo may retain rights over distribution of the specific Super Nintendo releases. They're not exactly famously transparent about these thirty-year-old dealings, though they're not alone in this area either.
I freely admit this might not be the problem, but the very specific removal of three Super Nintendo games between one release and another...it may be Nintendo, it may be Tecmo having an abrupt change of heart, or something else.
The lack of SNES games in Rare Replay is probably simple logistics and funny decisions. Of the 7 games they developed for the system, 3 are the DKC series... duh. Ken Griffey Jr.'s Winning Run is probably mired in MLB rights, not to mention KGJ himself. Battletoads and Double Dragon might be... Arc Systems I think? That just leaves Battlemaniacs and Killer Instinct. Maybe they though nobody cares about KI when KI2/Gold is there, and that Battletoads is more remembered than Battlemaniacs. A... strange decision to make in a compilation with such remembered treasures such as Underwurlde and Knight Lore. Most other compilations will include part 1 even if part 2 was the marquee hit. Either way I can't see why Nintendo would ever step in for those 2 games.